Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that welcome information on International Women's Day. Does he agree that the expansion of high quality childcare places is not only essential for the health and wellbeing of our children but is also economically important in that it provides additional jobs for childcare workers—the majority of whom are women—and enables many mothers to work with peace of mind? Will he assure me that, in addition to providing the good training about which he spoke earlier, the Government will ensure that the expansion of Sure Start and other childcare initiatives will be underpinned by sound quality standards?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is absolutely right. Part of the common core training for all those who work with children is the identification of harm and risk, as it should be. The answer to her earlier question is that we are seeking to ensure that all people who work with children have that common core as part of their developmental training, so increasingly there is a convergence of training across sectors. That allows people who go in as childcare workers to progress to more senior positions and to other parts of the childcare workforce. That is what they want and also what we need to ensure that we do not lose talented people from the children's workforce.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, having succeeded the late Baroness Brigstocke last year as chairman of Home-Start International, may I thank the Minister for the help that the charity and our voluntary schemes around the world, particularly in Africa, are receiving both from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and from the Department for International Development? Will the Minister please convey our thanks to those departments?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, as ever the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has challenged me on the specifics of the detail. I can say for certain that when we publish the children's workforce strategy in the near future, we expect to set out very clearly how the whole workforce needs to develop. As he knows, we set out for the first time in 2001 clear national standards for the training and development of childcare workers where there had previously not been any standards. However, he is right to raise a wider issue about the extent to which the children's work force will need, over time, to develop its richness and skills to meet the pedagogic goals set by the Every Child Matters agenda.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the 30-year rule does not exist in its previous form. We have made sure that in the work of the national archives and each department, information which falls within the Act's framework and beyond its exemptions is made available. The noble Lord will recognise that I cannot comment on individual requests before departments at present; not least because for the 4,000 requests that we know of it would be a huge amount of information to obtain.
	However, the Act is working well and information is being released as appropriate within the rules. The information retained by departments or the archives is under the auspices of the Act and not the 30-year rule.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful. I hesitate to puncture any optimism or joyfulness, but is the Minister aware that when I asked the previous Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the former Home Secretary, Jack Straw, whether I could see the concluded studies for the Human Rights Act—I explained that I did not want to see anything to do with ministerial responsibility—I was given two answers. One was from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who has a developed sense of humour, who suggested that I waited until I was 94 under the 30-year rule. He said he was sure that my health would ensure that I would see the document. Secondly, when I finally saw, after the ombudsman intervened, 32 pieces of paper, they were crudely excised and one of the excisions was where the noble Lord, Lord Warner, had given advice to the Labour Party. I was told that I could not be informed that it was the noble Lord, Lord Warner, as he was not a government official. Is there now a spirit of glasnost and perestroika breaking out which will ensure that that will no longer happen?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord found out that the relevant person was my noble friend Lord Warner, so clearly there is a spirit of openness within this area. I know that the noble Lord does not expect me to comment on the individual circumstances as, of course, I do not know about those. However, it is very important that, as the noble Lord rightly says, we approach this matter in a spirit of openness and that it becomes normal practice for all of us to view our work as being much more in the public domain. That is the critical part of this matter. I think the noble Lord will see that this process will settle down into a very well established pattern not just for the benefit of noble Lords but, as I say, in every-day situations where people of this country want to find out about their local hospitals, schools, councils and so on. A better dialogue will begin to develop in both directions with government central and local.

Lord Laming: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the victims of domestic violence include the children of the household? Will she give an assurance that when the police are called to households in these circumstances they will do a report on the children's welfare to social services?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am very pleased to do that. This very day we launched with the National Union of Teachers guidance to teachers on how they should respond to domestic violence, together with the Home Office sponsored anti-bullying and domestic violence toolkits. The real issue for many teachers who have grappled with this issue for a long time is, when they identify a child who is so suffering, what they do on a practical level to help alleviate that situation. The guidance that we issued today, together with the Home Office joint anti-bullying and domestic violence toolkits, gives teachers the tools that they need to meet this challenge much more effectively.

Baroness Prosser: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report which was published last week entitled, What a Waste, which calls upon government to take a more strategic approach to combating violence against women? I declare an interest in this report, as it was published in part by the Women's National Commission, a body which I chair. How may such strategic approaches enable government to provide a more co-ordinated response to the varied impact of violence upon women's lives, particularly bearing in mind the impact upon their general health?

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, while I recognise the profits made by banks, can my noble friend advise the House, and particularly me, of the extent to which the banks contribute to the well-being of the British economy.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 1 I should point out that if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 2 because of pre-emption.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as I understand it, although I have not had the opportunity to consider it all, the amendment is explanatory. Am I right? If I am, it is incumbent upon the Government to come forward at a later stage, after the Bill has been considered, with an explanatory note. However, I do not think the Bill has to be amended.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that depends on the final construct of the nature of the judicial involvement. If the other place were to accept that there should be no difference between the derogating orders and the non-derogating orders, but that there should be a unity of procedure, then one can see the force of replicating the rules.
	If, however, the other place reached a different view—that the construct advocated in this House by the Government and placed in the amendments which were debated in this House is the better course, then a different construct would prevail. It is of course open to a third and different construct, which is not currently considered to be before the other place. That is why we think it would be more prudent to restrict the amendments to those needed on the face of the Bill, so that when it returns to the other place—if I can speak colloquially—it makes sense, but without presuming that the consideration will necessarily go in the way that we have currently indicated.
	As I have indicated, we are certainly not going to divide the House. I can only urge noble Lords to accept the government amendments, which are sound and make the necessary technical adjustments that make the vote undertaken by your Lordships make sense and be consistent.

[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

Lord Kingsland: my Lords, this is an amendment that was well canvassed both on Second Reading and in Committee. Once again, I need only dwell on it briefly.
	The issue here is extremely simple and well-established. If a statute is going to take away the liberties of a British citizen, the manner in which it takes those liberties away must be clearly set out on the face of the Bill. Each liberty from which it is intended to resile should expressly appear on the face of the Bill. Clause 1(3) does not accord with that approach; it sets out a range of possible restraints that might be imposed on the subject of a control order. However, it does not exclude the possibility—or, perhaps, the probability—that a whole range of other restraints that do not appear on the face of the Bill could also be imposed upon a potential controllee.
	Therefore, what we are seeking to achieve by this amendment is simply consistent with our best constitutional traditions. If the Government want to restrain somebody in a certain way under a control order—where he has, in reality, no entitlement to a criminal trial—then each and every restraint that might be placed on this person must appear on the face of the Bill. That is the beginning and end of Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.

Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I made a speech at Second Reading in favour of that view. I still hold to that view, having listened to all the speeches since. I would certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in the view that he is taking. As I said yesterday, while I am in favour of control orders, they should be made as compliant as possible with both human rights legislation and, more broadly, with common law assumptions about constitutionality, the rule of law, and so on. The argument, it seems to me, is that the control orders, which are currently both indefinite in their formulation and open-ended in their number, should be frozen in their present form.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: moved Amendment No. 7:
	After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
	"CONTROL ORDERS: SUPPLEMENTARY
	(1) If, as a consequence of the obligations imposed by a control order, a person becomes unemployed, arrangements shall be made for that person to receive any social security benefits or unemployment benefits to which he may be entitled.
	(2) If a control order is made in respect of a person already in receipt of social security benefits or unemployment benefits, arrangements shall be made to ensure that the person shall continue to receive those benefits.
	(3) In any case where a control order is made, appropriate arrangements shall be made to ensure that the person in respect of whom the order is made, and his household, shall have access to, or shall continue to have access to, supplies of food, household and personal necessities.
	(4) In any case where a control order is made, appropriate arrangements shall be made to ensure that the person in respect of whom the order is made shall have access to such health care as may be necessary."
	The noble Lady said: My Lords, I was not satisfied with the answers that I got from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when I raised this matter last Thursday in Committee.
	There is no history of putting people under house arrest in this country, and so no mechanism for looking after them and managing the house arrest. Possibly the Government intend to remedy this. I imagine that they intend to do something, on account of their dear friend the European Convention on Human Rights, to which they made this country sign up and in which I have no faith at all. In fact, if I were to say what I thought of it, I should probably find myself using thoroughly unparliamentary language.
	I want to be sure that these suspects, whether innocent or guilty—they have not been tried in a court of law and therefore cannot be said with any certainty to be guilty—are treated in a manner compatible with traditional British decency and not in the kind of way in which some countries, such as Burma and the United States, which have house arrest, may or may not choose to treat people. House arrest should not just be a cheap alternative to imprisonment.
	It is very important not only that we treat suspects subject to derogating orders with humanity, but that we are seen to be doing so. We are not degraded by what is done to us; we are degraded by how we ourselves behave and how we ourselves treat others. That is why this provision should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 241; Not-Contents, 139.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we on these Benches strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has said, and I will briefly add a few arguments. We indicated last night that, in our view, the link between the review and the sunset clause is absolutely crucial. First, a review without a sunset clause can easily be tossed aside and disregarded, as was the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, despite its excellence. Secondly, there is another profound reason, which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, touched upon—that is, the issue of how seriously Parliament is to be taken. If the counter-terrorism Bill of 2001 was rushed through Parliament, this legislation is being stampeded through it, and there is no adequate consideration of the terms of the Bill.
	It is sometimes felt that our executive—even our Prime Minister, brilliant communicator though he is—increasingly does not treat either of the Houses of Parliament with any great seriousness. Parliament's role is as much at stake in this set of issues as counter-terrorism itself. It is crucial that we stand up for the role of Parliament, which means that we need the time to think, to set a balance, and to discuss proportionality in what may well be the most important issue of our generation: how we deal with the threat of terrorism. Dealing with it wrongly can be profoundly counter-productive, as a number of your Lordships have pointed out in our debates.
	Finally, in this House, with the possible exception of the Government Front Bench, a clear consensus is already building up about what a new Bill ought to look like. It is not divided on party lines, nor on lines of the particular attitude one may have as regards ones previous interests or concerns. There is clearly a very wide support for a different kind of Bill.
	To conclude, it of the greatest importance that legislation passed through this House about issues concerning terrorism and—as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has said—any qualifications to our fundamental liberties, has the support of the great majority of parliamentarians. This Bill will not have that support; it will be deeply divisive. For the future, we need a solid base of consensus and agreement across parties and between the two Houses. I believe that that is in our reach, and that the sunset clause is crucial to our achieving it.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, noble Lords who, by their advocacy of a sunset clause for November of this year, have expressed concern about the speed with which this legislation is going through the House and through the other place, seem to be in danger of creating precisely that problem a few months down the road. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, talked of us considering the next Bill which could be dealt with by November. The reality is that we would be rushing through what we are told will be a much more complicated Bill, which will consider offences in relation to acts preparatory to terrorism and so on, in an equally unsatisfactory timetable.
	If one believes that it is important that there is proper consideration and if one believes, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, clearly does, that there should be a review process by a committee of Privy Counsellors—no doubt we shall consider that in a few minutes—clearly there has to be time for proper consideration of all that, which is why I wonder why the amendment proposes November this year.
	I believe that most Members of your Lordships' House are trying their very best to achieve consensus on these matters but, when a date such as November is put forward, I wonder whether this is about building consensus or trying to create confusion and problems. As the Bill stands it already includes very substantial processes of review: three-monthly reports by the Secretary of State; someone to review the operations of Sections 1 to 8; and a consideration of all of that. I believe that those are very important and helpful clauses. I understand that any derogation from the convention will be considered by both Houses of Parliament annually. Therefore, review processes are built in.
	I understand the arguments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the symbolic importance and significance of putting an end date in the Bill, but to put an end date of November simply means that later this year we shall be considering another Bill, much too quickly, without the proper opportunities of consideration of the review processes that this Bill would put in place.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, I would have thought that the need for a sunset clause is absolutely obvious. The judicial process has been distorted by the rush on which the Government have insisted. Therefore, it is inevitable that there should be a sunset clause, focussing attention on how we should achieve cross-party agreement.
	I do not understand the problem about the time. The long vacation is just the kind of period for the Privy Council to work, undisturbed, and decide on its views. The long vacation is very long indeed. Some people would like to be occupied during it, and I hope that the Privy Counsellors will be. I suggest to your Lordships that there cannot be any conceivable contest in regard to a sunset clause, and that what is proposed is thoroughly sensible.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I hesitate to suggest that one of the reasons for the need for a sunset has not yet been mentioned. The fight against terrorism is not just a fight against the bombers: it is also a fight for the hearts and minds of the community from which they come.
	If one accepts that the present statistics in the policing world are that members of that community are stopped more often on the street, are harassed more often, and therefore already feel themselves to be under siege, the worst thing we could possibly do would be to bring in such draconian measures—as we know we may in some way have to—without our having an exit strategy or an improvement strategy at a given date. I am most certainly unconvinced that, if we do not have it, the Government will be forced into doing this within the foreseeable future.
	On the hearts and minds side, we have to satisfy those communities that we are not just interning those people we wish to intern. When someone may be suspected of being a bomber or a member of such an organisation, his family will not know about it. We have had that experience in Northern Ireland. They will not know about it; they will not understand it. They will have no idea. Will there be a possibility of the children going to school and saying, "Daddy was doing this last night"? Let us be realistic. They are not unprofessional in the terrorism that they carry out.
	We find that when you take an action on suspects that may be seen as being unjust, with no exit strategy, the family become totally united against you and each one of those suspects and their families, like you or me, has maybe 100 or 200 friends. They will all believe that the action is totally unjustified because they believe that the person that they know could in no way be the suspect that we perceive them to be.
	That is very important. It is the other half of the fight against terrorism—it is the long-term fight against terrorism. We must show those people that we will try to prove what we are doing and limit it. Therefore, in their eyes, a sunset clause is not a big hope but it is a hope that we treat this legislation seriously and that we may amend it or totally renew it and not leave it sitting on the sidelines.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I will deal first with the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and my noble friend Lord Plant about the contracting out provisions, as I will refer to them. When those comments were first made by my noble friend Lord Plant, many in the House will have noticed the alarm and disbelief written large on my face. The whole basis of this Bill is that we are dealing with information of the highest possible sensitivity and it is of the utmost importance that information should be entrusted only to those who can be guaranteed not to relay—whether advertently or inadvertently—that information to those who might put this country and our citizens at risk. That remains the case.
	However, light dawned when I came to consider the provisions that must be put in place in relation to electronic monitoring or tagging. The tagging procedures in relation to those who are made subject to a tagging order—are carried out by contractors outwith Her Majesty's service. However, I assure your Lordships that the advice upon which we rely is not contracted out: it remains the advice received from the security services and indeed the police.
	I would first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, for the kind words that he directed to what I had to say. However, I sup with a long spoon when it comes to those compliments because I know that the noble Lord intends by so saying to say, "Disregard what the noble Baroness says on the matter because like a siren she will lure you on to the rocks". If only I had that ability.
	So I will stick to the position where we are and return to the issues on which we agree. We agree that the orders that we are contemplating can be contemplated only in relation to a situation that arises in extremis. Although there is a small cadre of notable exceptions who dissent—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and on my Benches my noble friend Lady Kennedy and others—the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Front Benches agree that we need control orders in some form. That idea appears to be accepted.
	It is accepted too that this country is in danger and subject to a threat. All of us in looking at the provisions are bearing that in mind, even where we may disagree. I agree too with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Hayman that there is much about which we do and can—and I hope we will, in the long term—agree.
	It is generally accepted that November—if we were to have a sunset clause—would at the least be a challenging if not impossibly impracticable date for all the reasons that many noble Lords, not least my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Harris and Lord Plant and others on opposite Benches have outlined.
	It is also correct that the Government have accepted that a review of the provisions is merited; reviews are now contained in Clause 13. I accept that the House's view as currently expressed in the debate urges the Government to go further by way of review. The reviews we have outlined in those provisions are the three-monthly report, the yearly report and the work of the identified reviewer. The Government have heard the House say that that does not go far enough and we need further and deeper review.
	I take too the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and others, that members of the other place have not had as much opportunity to have their say as your Lordships. I take into consideration that the timeframe for the other place will therefore be limited. However, I invite your Lordships to bear in mind that there has been proper interest in the debates that have taken place in your Lordships' House. Indeed, your Lordships could not have failed to have noticed a number of Members from the other place who have with due diligence come to listen in person to what your Lordships have said.
	Your Lordships can be assured that the content of the debates that have taken place in this House has been given the most anxious scrutiny by all of those who have come to deal with them. It is anticipated today that after Third Reading we will send the Bill back to the other place for further consideration. That will not only be consideration for the amendments but an opportunity to consider further the comments made by noble Lords—not least those made so ably by my noble friend Lady Hayman—about a different way forward.
	My noble friend talked about an annual review and other provisions. I am not in a position at this stage to say anything that would give your Lordships an assurance that the Government can proffer a sunset clause. However, the Government will continue to consider these debates, together with all the debates we had yesterday; and the other place will also come to consider those matters again.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, this matter has been very fully debated for the second time in 24 hours; so I can be extremely terse in my response. There are two issues for your Lordships. The first is, should there be a sunset clause at all? The second is, if so, when should it bite? On the first issue, the noble Baroness has not been prepared to give an undertaking that in another place the Government will introduce a sunset clause. So it is absolutely clear that if we do not put on to the statute book the principle of a sunset clause today, it will be dead.
	The merits of the principle have already been extremely well expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and many others. It seems to me extraordinary that the Government are asking for an indefinite suspension of habeas corpus without regularly coming back to Parliament. That is all that needs to be said about the principle. I hope it is unimaginable that your Lordships would accept the Government's position in that respect.
	As regards the question of timing, if we do pass a sunset clause it is always then open to the Government to alter the length of time in another place and then come back to us. So at the end of the day the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Clinton-Davis, may well both have their cake and eat it on this matter. It so happens, I believe, that the November date is absolutely the right one.
	A long time ago the very great American songwriter, Richard Rodgers, wrote songs with the equally great librettist, Lorenz Hart. An admiring lady asked Richard Rodgers one day, "What is the source of your inspiration, Mr Rodgers? Is it your music or is it Mr Hart's wonderful lyrics"? He replied, "No, madam, it is the arrival of the monthly rent demand". Look at it this way. The November date is the monthly rent demand. It will concentrate the Government's mind like nothing else. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we spoke about this in part in the last group. We have already indicated that we think these proposals visions are covered by provisions in the Bill. Amendment No. 18 creates a committee of Privy Counsellors to review the operation of the Act and report on it after four months and eight months. It would provide that the reports carried out by the committee created under Amendment No. 18 would consider the operational effectiveness of the legislation.
	I have already set out that we believe in principle that the provisions in Clauses 18 and 19 are unnecessary for the reasons I have already given, because of the scheme already proposed by the Bill. In addition to that, there are already committees of the House with a remit in this area, including the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Both have shown, and will undoubtedly continue to show, an active interest in the counter-terrorism legislation. There will therefore be review mechanisms in place, and an opportunity to consider the results. We believe these provisions provide an appropriate means of keeping the provisions under regular scrutiny.
	I take account of the comments made by all noble Lords during the last debate, and I add those few comments in addition to explain why the Government feel this current position is sustainable.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Insert the following new Clause—
	"EFFECT OF REPORT
	(1) A report under section (Review of Act) must consider the operation and effectiveness of the Act as a whole and any issues arising from the operation of individual control orders, and may make such recommendations as the committee sees fit including recommendations for future legislation.
	(2) Any recommendation made under subsection (1) shall not affect the operation of section (Limitation)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, perhaps I may direct your Lordships' attention to the provision that affects Scotland. Preliminary hearing proceedings relating to a control order would take place before the Sheriff of Lothian and Borders.
	New Clause 2 defines the court as being the appropriate place to go. The definition at the end of the Bill states that that the court in Scotland is the Outer House of the Court of Session, which now has a cadre of 24 judges, each of whom also has knowledge of criminal proceedings by virtue of being a member of the High Court of Justiciary.
	In addition, the Inner House is the place to which appeal proceedings are taken in terms of the schedule. That will be governed by the rules of the Court of Session which the Lord President will make in relation to what is proposed under the Bill. His writ runs over the Court of Session and has nothing to do with the Sheriff of Lothian and Borders, who has a completely different jurisdiction.
	So we would be creating an enormous problem. We would in fact be suggesting that in Scotland an application must always be made to one judge; namely, a junior judge, one who is not a member of the Court of Session. With the greatest deference to the noble Baronesses who proposed the amendment, I suggest that the provision would create a complete nonsense for Scotland. I make no comment on what would arise in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hayman for putting forward the suggestion, which, as she rightly says, was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. It is put forward very much in the spirit of trying to find a sensible solution.
	The amendments would apply to derogating orders, in respect of which we already accept that there should be judicial involvement before an order is made. They would also apply to non-derogating orders, in respect of which the House has made amendments to the effect that there should be judicial involvement from the start. We do not accept the second proposition, but I shall address the issue on the basis that what is sought by this House is judicial involvement prior to the making of an order and before it comes into effect. Remember that there is still the third way of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, of the Home Secretary making the order with leave to enforce it coming only from the courts.
	The attractions of the route of my noble friend, Lady Hayman, and of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is that you have a group of existing judges who currently deal with matters akin to what is being sought here; namely, search warrants and extensions of time for detention by the police. The downside of what my noble friend suggests is that she talks of what the district judge does as being subject to review or appeal by a higher judge; namely, a High Court judge.
	The way I see the proposal in relation to derogating orders proposed by the Government in the Bill and what this House has inserted in relation to non-derogating orders, is precisely how the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, puts the issue, which is that you bring the matter before a judge. He takes a provisional view without having heard from the other side. Appeal is not the next stage; the next stage is a much more profound examination. That approach would strongly favour the first order being made by the same level of judge who makes the second order.
	These orders are very significant in law terms. Ultimately, they should be made by a High Court judge and not by somebody below the level of a High Court judge. In those circumstances, I favour the approach being put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. It should be the High Court first, and then the High Court again, because of the significance of the orders and because it indicates that this is not about an Appeal. This is about a provisional look, followed by a detailed look with both parties at the subsequent stage. I think that that provides the best protection, but I appreciate the spirit in which the amendment was put forward. I hope that what I have said has provided some assistance.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend has undoubtedly provided some assistance. The reason I hesitate slightly is because it seemed to me that he was conceding the significance of the orders and the need for a High Court judge to be involved in the orders—that is all the orders, not just the derogating orders. That is a significant acceptance by our Front Bench about judicial involvement as a matter of principle rather than as a matter of necessity because of the votes of the House.
	Putting that to one side, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I was interested in the opinion of the House. I am grateful that if I went down two to one on the judicial view, at least one was willing to support me. I am more than happy to withdraw the amendment, not least because the last thing that I would want to do is to cause muddle in Scotland. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sits down, could he deal with something? I am rather bewildered by that response, although I welcome the parliamentary scrutiny which he said he will concede. Could he explain why it is alright for the Scots to have a judge determining this and why it can be done within the timetable in Scotland, but the same cannot be done in England? That was the point which my noble friend made. The implication of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is saying is that something would go wrong—given the urgency—if it were left to a judge, rather than to the Lord Chancellor. Where does that leave Scotland?

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, while fully accepting, understanding and agreeing with the principle which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is trying to achieve, I am concerned about some of the wording of this particular amendment, and whether it is obtainable as the noble Lord has expressed it.
	As a general question, does the noble Lord consider that the preliminary hearing is a control order proceeding? I should have thought it must be, because it comes under these proceedings. If so, then, with the greatest respect, the Liberal Democrats' amendments are totally self-contradictory. In the rules which the noble Lord is saying must now be made, it specifically says that they must:
	"ensure that the relevant party and his legal representatives are given notice of all control order proceedings and relevant appeal proceedings and are able to attend".
	Yet if one goes to new Clause 2(2), which the Liberal Democrats introduced earlier today, they say it shall be the duty of the court:
	"to hold an immediate preliminary hearing".
	They go on to say:
	"The preliminary hearing under subsection 1(a) may be held in the absence of the individual in question; without his having notice of the application for the order; and without his having been given an opportunity (if he was aware of the application) of making any representations".
	Unless it is made clear that the control order proceedings only apply to a full hearing rather than the preliminary hearing, what they are trying to do on the face of this Bill is totally self-contradictory.
	It is not realistic to believe that the sort of principles which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is setting out could be achieved in a preliminary hearing which will, of its very nature, be immediate and quick, as has been accepted on all sides.
	I query this amendment in one or two other respects. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the view that we should do everything, by regulation and rules, to make the hearing as near to a normal hearing of a criminal trial as possible. We have all agreed that, and the House has passed an amendment which provides that these proceedings should not come into being unless the Director of Public Prosecutions is satisfied that there is no possibility of a reasonable trial.
	It is almost inevitable that there is going to be certain evidence which must be excluded from the defendant. Yet the wording and tone of these amendments is that an application being made to exclude certain evidence would somehow be the exception rather than the rule. Inevitably, once one gets to the situation where one is going for a control order—having decided an ordinary trial is not possible—it is likely that there will be evidence which is not available.
	Furthermore, but along the same lines, if one looks at the matters which must be covered by the regulations, they allow representatives to question witnesses. The trouble is that, in many of these cases, the one thing one will not be able to do is disclose the name or identity of the witness giving evidence. That is why one is having these proceedings in the first place: to do so might put people at risk.
	It is sadly unrealistic to suggest that one can have rules which must ensure that the relevant party—that is, the person against whom the application has been made—is entitled to question witnesses. Equally, I question whether it is realistic to say, as it does in sub-paragraph (d), that he is entitled to disclose any
	"relevant material which may harm or assist the relevant party's case".
	In this type of procedure there will be some areas that we will be unable to cover. Therefore, while I think we should do everything we can to get as close to the rules of a normal criminal trial as possible, we must think further to see what is achievable and what is not. That may be another argument for having more time on this Bill.
	I notice something in this Bill that is not referred to elsewhere within it. If the evidence the Secretary of State has is exculpatory of the individual then, in that case, that evidence should clearly be provided to him. When it is said that the evidence should be of a kind that may harm the party's case, it is not realistic to require rules to be made which require that disclosure, or the right to question those witnesses.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this very important group of amendments is concerned with the rules of court and with torture. The first part of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is intended to ensure that the rules of court made comply with Article 6 of the convention. We accept that they must, whether they are made by the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord Chancellor. If they do not, they can be struck down in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998. So there is already legal protection in relation to the rules. We also submit that it is unnecessary in those circumstances to include the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
	A fundamental point which everybody recognises is the extent to which you can disclose to the suspect and his legal representative material which underlies or plays a part in the case against the suspect brought by the state. It is not without interest that with regard to every single one of the people in Belmarsh, evidence that was not revealed to the suspect or his legal adviser was involved. In every case, evidence that was kept secret from the suspect was involved.
	It is worth setting out what the procedure in the SIAC cases involved because cases under this part of the Bill will be similar. Open evidence—that which is available to all—is disclosed to the appellant and to the special advocate at a relatively early stage in the process. So the applicant or the suspect, his legal adviser and the special advocate all see the material. It is worth emphasising that the applicant or the suspect does not just have a legal adviser; he or she also has the special advocate to look at the material.
	The open evidence disclosed to the applicant, his legal adviser and the special advocate enables the special advocate to discuss the open evidence with the applicant before the special advocate sees the closed evidence. The proposition is that once the special advocate has seen the closed evidence, he or she cannot talk to the applicant or their legal representative because they may inadvertently give the information which, if the applicant, or his or her legal representative finds it, might endanger national security in some way.
	The closed evidence is then provided to the special advocate. Following that, the Rule 38 process, as it is described, begins. That procedure tests whether it is appropriate for all the closed evidence put forward by the Secretary of State to remain closed. The special advocate may ask for disclosure to the appellant of some of the closed evidence—that is, that some closed evidence should be made open. In all such cases, every piece of evidence is considered separately although decisions on some pieces of evidence can be made only in the context of the evidence as a whole.
	There is a process of discussion between the special advocate and the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's counsel takes instructions and advice from the relevant departments and agencies and tries to bottom out what the sensitivities are and whether the evidence could, in truth, be disclosed to the applicant and thereby made open. Usually agreement is reached between the special advocate and the Secretary of State on most issues concerning whether to make closed evidence open. Often this agreement is by way of a compromise. For example, it may be safe to put a redacted version of the particular piece of closed evidence into the open evidence or the gist of the closed evidence may be prepared for disclosure to the applicant even though the closed evidence remains closed. If agreement cannot be reached, then the court is asked to rule on it. So it is a probing process, designed to ensure that as much evidence as possible is made available to the suspect and his legal representative.
	In parallel, machinery has developed for ensuring that any relevant unused material is not held back from SIAC. The balanced approach taken by the Secretary of State to assembling the evidence for cases should ensure that any relevant material which may be exculpatory is not concealed. But to ensure that that is the position, procedures have been put in place to check all the material to ensure that no exculpatory material has been overlooked. Because of the volume of the material, it has been impracticable for the special advocate to perform this task. Obviously, the suspect and his legal representatives could not do so. Consequently, the Secretary of State has put in place a mechanism whereby all other accessible material concerning the suspect is checked by the Secretary of State's counsel to see whether there was any exculpatory material. If so, this material would be provided to the special advocate.
	Following the provision of such material to the special advocate, there is further consideration by the special advocate and SIAC—in this case it would be the High Court—regarding whether any of the material should be made open and disclosed to the suspect. This procedure ensures that even where additional unused material remains completely closed, the court is put fully in the picture and can ultimately decide on the fairness of the proceedings. It is worth emphasising, therefore, that all exculpatory material must be made available by the Secretary of State; he has processes involving Counsel which means that an independent member of the Bar checks whether there is any exculpatory material. If there is, he or she alerts the Home Secretary who then makes it available to the special advocate who is there in practice to ensure a fair process.
	This is a very detailed process which is designed to deal with the fundamental problem which everybody who has looked at the situation agrees exists of allowing a fair process but ensuring that there is no damage to national security.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If I can just finish this point, I shall come back to the noble Lord.
	It is worth recalling the concerns expressed yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and by my noble friend Lady Ramsay. They have much greater experience than anybody else in this Chamber. First, my noble friend the Lady Ramsay of Cartvale:
	"I am extremely worried and disturbed at how intelligence material in general and interception material in particular is being advocated by some noble Lords as suitable for disclosure in court proceedings ... That would be an extremely serious blow to any intelligence or law enforcement service".—[Official Report, 7/3/05; col. 601.]
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth said
	"Frankly, if such agents see this sort of thing happening in courts, and defence counsel—quite properly, given the interests of their client—revealing what should not be revealed, then we shall not have any agents ... It is also one of the more serious aspects of terrorism that it is extremely difficult to find people with access, courage, determination and lasting power. We should not overlook the fact that they too have rights. They need to be protected—and need that protection more, I fear, than the person who would be on trial".—[Official Report, 7/3/05; col. 604.]
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, looked at this matter from an objective standpoint, and he made precisely the same point as has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and by my noble friend. He said specifically that if the material was disclosed to the suspect and his legal representative, then there would be danger. It is worth pointing out that in every one of the Belmarsh cases, the judge agreed that there was some material that could not be disclosed to the suspect or his legal representative. However, in relation to all that material, that suspect would have the benefit of a special advocate.
	That is the procedure, but is it fair or just? Can justice be done in relation to that? This is the view of the SIAC procedure on whether it is fair, in the case of A—which went to the House of Lords, but not on this point:
	"The proceedings are as fair as could reasonably be achieved. It is true that the detainees and their lawyers do not have the opportunity of examining the closed material. However, the use of separate counsel to act on their behalf in relation to the closed evidence provides a substantial degree of protection. In addition, in deciding upon whether there has been compliance with Article 6 it is necessary to look at the proceedings as a whole (including the appeal before this court). When this is done and the exception in relation to national security, referred to in Article 6, is given due weight, I am satisfied there is no contravention of that article".
	He returned to the issue again in the case of M:
	"Individuals who appeal to SIAC are undoubtedly under a grave disadvantage. So far as it is possible this disadvantage should be avoided or if it cannot be avoided minimised. However, the unfairness involved can be necessary because of the interests of national security. The involvement of a special advocate is intended to reduce (it cannot wholly eliminate) the unfairness which follows from the fact that an appellant will be unaware at least as to part of the case against him.
	We feel this case has additional importance because it clearly demonstrates that, while the procedures which SIAC have adopted are not ideal, it is possible by using special advocates to ensure that those detained can achieve justice. It is wrong, therefore, to undervalue the SIAC appeal process".
	Whoever makes the rules in relation to this process is going to make them similar to those which applied in relation to SIAC. They have to comply with Article 6. Noble Lords can if they wish believe, because it is deportation proceedings, that different rules of fairness would have applied. I think it extraordinarily unlikely that the courts would have taken that view in relation to a procedure that involved, by the time the Court of Appeal looked at it, somebody having been in prison for three years. It would be little comfort to be told that these are deportation proceedings and therefore different.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the judge who is considering this material has the interests of the public at heart. That is why he is there. He is a public officer and he is clearly concerned to carry out a balance between the safety of the public and the rights of the defendant. Very often a judge will ensure that the material which is before him is not released. It is only when he says, "In my opinion, carrying out the balance between the public safety and the rights of the defendant, the rights of the defendant prevail", and the prosecution say, "In those circumstances we disagree with you, judge", that a prosecution is withdrawn. The judge does not sit there thinking to himself, "Forget about the public, forget about safety". That is his function in all these terrorist trials.
	It is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Government who say that the first way in which we should deal with terrorism is to bring them to court. If we bring them to court, we are not introducing special advocates in the criminal courts; we will be dealing with it along the lines of the system I have described. Sensitive material will be placed before the judge for a ruling.
	If it can be done in a situation where there is enough evidence to say that a person really is a terrorist and you will prosecute him for that, and there is sensitive material which the judge will see, why can it not be done when the Home Secretary says, "We do not have enough material to make sure that he is a terrorist, but we have little bits and pieces. We have an intercept here; we have hearsay from over there; we have some very interesting evidence obtained by torture in Guantanamo. We can put all that together. We do not have a case, but this is so secret that we cannot disclose it to a High Court judge"? It is nonsense that that sort of differential should be brought forward from the Special Immigration Appeal Court—dealing with people who by definition are not citizens of this country—to deal with British citizens appearing in the High Court.
	If there is enough evidence to prosecute them, therefore, the sensitive material is dealt with as it normally is—through public interest immunity applications. If there is not enough, we have to have special advocates brought in to deal with it. It is complete nonsense.
	I do not like the special advocate procedure—and I am not alone. Two special advocates have resigned, saying that they could not do their job. They had to guess what their instructions would be when they saw some of the material that was secret. They could not go back to the client. They were not trusted, even obliquely, to ask, "Do you have anything to say about the fact that you were in..."—wherever it was—"...on a particular day? Could you have been somewhere else?" or "Tell me where you were on that day". They cannot even do that.
	The nine special advocates who reported and gave written evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, which your Lordships will recall I read out at Second Reading, are not happy with it either. Nor is my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, who made recommendations in a report a year ago and who said, in his current report which was published two weeks ago, that nothing had happened about the recommendations he made a year ago. He was calling then for more support for special advocates, and for the involvement of experienced criminal advocates instead of lawyers who are trained in administrative law. Nothing was done.
	The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not addressed at all the vital issue of torture, which was the central matter debated on this amendment. Nothing has been said about that. We heard what he said yesterday. It is totally unsatisfactory.
	It is said that my amendment is unhelpful and misleading; that it would sow confusion and there would be no added value by having this amendment. I do not believe that is true. I believe that people should know that the rules which are to be formulated, and which would be subject to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, should contain these principles. I do not suggest that it is the be-all and end-all and that everything is included in this amendment, but it gives the idea of precisely the sorts of areas that should be covered. It underlines the necessity for putting Article 6 on the face of the Bill and not for it to be said, "Of course these rules will comply with Article 6".
	Why do I say that it is necessary to put it on the face of the Bill and for these particular provisions to be on the face of the Bill? Because the concept of a fair trial differs, depending upon the issue with which you are concerned.
	My Lords, I am not happy with the reply that I have received and I propose to seek the opinion of the House.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I suspect that the Government Front Bench is delighted to move on to this subject towards the end of a long day's proceedings. It is a great shame that we are under the time constrictions set by the Government Chief Whip to discuss the matter.
	I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, put forward, much more eloquently than I could. I did not take part in debates on the Water Bill but, as noble Lords will know, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, supported this aspect of the Bill, because it is our party's view that decisions on public health matters such as this should be made locally.
	I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the worrying aspect of the first set of regulations is the requirements on the strategic health authority. I have read the Explanatory Notes several times. They say:
	"The requirement is that SHA must not take any such step unless, having regard to the extent of support for the proposal and the cogency of the arguments advanced, the SHA are satisfied that the health arguments in favour of proceeding outweigh all arguments against proceeding. Thus the SHA will be able to consider the cogency to be attached to any representations made and to look at the extent of support for the proposal".
	It seems that the extent and the cogency of the opposition are somewhat downplayed. In some ways, these regulations are extremely biased, although they do not appear so on first reading. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is right; the extent of opposition at least must indicate the level of uncertainty in an area. A public health authority ought to take into account the simple fact that there is uncertainty in an area, whether or not it believes that the science behind it is sound.
	I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said about circular letters. I understand that quite often campaigns are vociferous but not well founded in science. But if the process that a strategic health authority must go through is to live up to the terms that the Minister indicated—it must be objective and transparent—the extent of the opposition must be taken into account. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is right: it is unusual, and it would not be right, to pray against such regulations, but I, too, want to signal that I am deeply unhappy with their drafting.
	I agree with the noble Earl that the effects of fluoridation have yet to be proven in the scientific terms that the medical world normally applies. However, in this particular circumstance it seems that there is an element of bias to be dealt with.
	On the indemnity proposals, I have one question. The terms of this order are surprisingly generous, on the part of both the Department of Health and the Treasury. The explanatory notes state that Clause 2 of the indemnity,
	"is intended to be widely drawn so that, as far as possible, water undertakers and licensed water suppliers will not suffer loss as a result of entering into an agreement to increase the fluoride content of water or to supply such water".
	As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, this will apply to claims that arise under the existing system as well. I simply ask the Minister what the Treasury estimate of the potential cost is of this quite wide ranging indemnity? With that I rest my case.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the British Fluoridation Society, a role which is, of course, unremunerated. I clearly welcome the two sets of regulations put before us today by my noble friend.
	It is not necessary at this stage to debate the merits or otherwise of fluoridation. They were determined by the House, with overwhelming support, with the passage of the Water Act 2003. Today, we are merely giving by these regulations, once they are approved not only by this House but by the House of Commons, the authority to allow the provisions of Section 58 to be put into effect. But those provisions have been already agreed by an overwhelming decision of this House.
	The consultation regulations are very straightforward and simple. They require strategic health authorities to undertake widespread public consultations on their water fluoridation proposals. They also provide for the requirements which must be satisfied before any such proposal is implemented.
	Under these regulations, strategic health authorities must give notice to every local authority within the area affected and undertake a three-month period of public consultation. Everything that needs to be done is being properly done in these regulations and I congratulate my noble friend upon it.
	Turning briefly to the indemnities regulation, under Section 58—the section already carried by Parliament—water suppliers may be required to fluoridate supplies when requested to do so by a strategic health authority. The indemnity regulations ensure as far as possible that water suppliers will not suffer loss as a result of acceding to a request for fluoridation. Section 58 makes it clear that they will not be required to fluoridate until an indemnity has been given by the Secretary of State. The indemnities regulations are therefore necessary before any new fluoridation proposal can be implemented under Section 58.
	I first became interested in fluoridation through being a constituency representative, elected over a period of 20 years in the West Midlands—an area where water was fluoridated already by the Severn Trent Water Authority. The one thing you could not help but notice was that the normal correlation between economic deprivation and bad dental health was exactly reversed in some of the poorest parts of the West Midlands. Those areas in the lowest quartile of economic prosperity in the UK all appeared in the top quartile of dental health. Having noticed this over a period of 20 years—20 years in which I never received a single letter of complaint, either as a Member of Parliament or a Member of the European Parliament—I became convinced that the electorate in the large Severn Trent area, where they were already receiving the benefits of fluoridation, was a sample that showed complete satisfaction.
	I thought we were going through a filibuster a bit earlier, to prevent these regulations being brought before the House. Eventually, however, we finished with terrorism and got on to these regulations. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on this. He is doing something which will be widely welcomed throughout the country.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, in making the case for fluoridation also made the case against it. He made it quite clear that there is an alternative to mass fluoridation and mass medication: proper dental health being imposed by parents. Indeed, as he says, that is what happens with most middle-class parents.
	The argument has changed over a long time. I have probably been around this issue even longer than the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. I was the chairman of the Land and Works Committee of the Thames Valley Water Board, as well as being a member of the local authority which was then responsible for public health. At that time, we were told that all children—about 15 per cent of the population—would benefit. But my local authority never took the view that it had to ask the water board, of which I was chairman, to fluoridate the water because it believed that there were other methods of inducing oral health. And so there are.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said that all the arguments about fluoridation had been worked out in the Water Act 2003. I have to tell him that the issue will not go away just because Parliament passed an Act. There are a lot of people—more than the noble Lord thinks—who are still opposed to mass medication through fluoridating water. As the noble Earl pointed out, the York review criticised the quality of the research that had been carried out and had said that a large minority of the population would benefit from fluoridating all water supplies.
	The argument has now come down to benefiting not all children but just poor children. In that case, the problem is smaller than it used to be and should be easier to deal with by other methods such as the proper education of working-class or deprived children and inducing a better diet. Indeed, it would be far cheaper than fluoridating water to give children fluoride toothpaste and toothbrushes as well.
	The argument for mass medication is by no means a good one and is by no means accepted by the vast majority of the population. People like me will not be convinced that it is necessary to force 60 million people and countless million animals to ingest fluoride, flooding the environment with it, simply to benefit a small part of the population which could receive the same benefit by other means. That argument will not go away, no matter what the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, says.
	The arrangements for consultation in the two orders are deficient. The 2003 Act and these measures affect everybody. Every individual will be forced to drink water which has fluoride—a poison—added to their water supply. Therefore, they are entitled to be consulted individually. No matter what the Minister says—I repeat what I said when we discussed the Bill that became the 2003 Act—there is no real substitute for referendums. I know that he disagrees, but that is the only way in which a proper consultation can take place when you are forcing mass medication on people. Not everybody reads the newspapers. I reckon that in my area, about 20 per cent read the local newspapers, so they will not be informed of what will happen to their water supplies. The arrangements for consultation will be in the hands of a small élite clique bent on inflicting fluoride, come what may.
	What is more, there is no provision for all interested organisations to be informed. The anti-fluoride organisations will not be informed as a right, and I think that they should be. Taxpayers' money is going to be used to promote fluoridation and to issue propaganda—I call it that advisedly—to promote the policy, whereas those people who are against it or have reservations have to finance their opposition from their own pockets. That does not seem to be a fair situation. These points were made in the discussions on the 2003 Water Bill.
	What about the Human Rights Act 1998? Is compulsory mass-medication—that it what it is—compatible with that? The Minister is going to tell us, if he has not already done so, that the legislation and these orders will be compatible, but that is what the Government told us about the measures that we are now discussing in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. That was said to be compatible with the Human Rights Act and was proved not to be. That is why we have had these days and hours of debate, trying to put that situation right. The Law Lords declared that, after all, Section 4 of that Act was not compatible with the Human Rights Act, so I am not at all sure that this measure is either. It may well be tested in the courts, and I hope that the courts will strike it down.
	I understand that that is probably a minority view in the House tonight, and perhaps at other times as well. We can vote against such orders as these, but it is the practice not to do so. Like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I will not seek to divide the House tonight.

Lord Warner: My Lords, we have had an interesting rerun in some respects of the debates on the Water Act 2003. We have a bit of time while the Prevention of Terrorism Bill is printed, but I do not want to go over all that debate again. I agree with my noble friend Lord Tomlinson that we have had this discussion, Parliament has spoken, and an Act which was certified by the responsible Minister as compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 has passed Parliament. We are talking about the narrower set of issues in the consultation regulations and in the indemnity regulations.
	However, just to clarify one or two points on research, I remind noble Lords that the University of York report concluded that water fluoridation increased the number of children without tooth decay by at least 15 per cent. It also said that currently around 6 million people receive water which either has had its level of fluoride adjusted or is naturally fluoridated to around 1 milligram per litre. No ill effects have been identified. That was in the University of York report.
	It did acknowledge that there might be improvements made in the quality of research that was available. The need for more good quality research was also accepted by the Government, who are committed to a continuing programme of research which takes account of the Medical Research Council's findings about the research necessary to strengthen the evidence base. That was not saying that there was no evidence base. As I have said, the University of York report was a strong endorsement of fluoridation, as well as acknowledging that there could be a need for a continuing programme of good quality research.
	The Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Dental Officer were asked to advise on the implications of the MRC report for government policy on fluoridation. Their advice and recommendations for research will inform a continuing programme. It is worth bearing in mind that the Department of Health commissioned the University of Newcastle's School of Dental Sciences to undertake a study into the bio-availability in naturally and artificially fluoridated drinking water. That study was published in July 2004 on the University of Newcastle's website. I am sure that noble Lords who have a fascination and interest in this subject will be able to read the research on that website. It concluded that there was no statistically significant difference in the absorption of fluoride between artificially and naturally fluoridated water or between soft and hard water. I do not want to go into the details, but that demonstrates the Government's continuing willingness to carry out research in this area and to make that research available in the public arena.
	A number of people have expressed concerns about the consultation process. It has never been our intention that the majority of responses should be interpreted as meaning that the issue will be settled by a head count. I do not want to go over all the ground again, but for the reasons that I gave in my opening speech and in the debate on the Water Act, we do not consider that referendums are appropriate here. However, there is no question of strategic health authorities being able to proceed on the basis of representations from one group of people or another. If we want to be conspiracy theorists, I suppose the argument would be that the dental profession would try to capture the ground in this area.
	The strategic health authorities have to weigh up all the arguments on all the views that are put forward and they have to take account of the cogency of the arguments. Part of that cogency argument is taking account of the research evidence, particularly where there is evidence showing that there is no association between fluoridation and a wide range of illnesses like cancer, thyroid disease or osteoporosis. People have made those claims. In the consultation process it is important that the weight of research evidence is taken into account in weighing the cogency arguments that are provided for in the regulations. We have to recognise that there will be some who are under misapprehensions about this matter.
	The department will also issue guidance on the approach to consultation. I certainly accept the argument that representations opposing fluoridation on the grounds that it is a form of mass medication which breaches human rights, have some cogency, if people want to argue that. But we would expect the strategic health authorities to weigh against those arguments the opposing view that any breach is justified by the benefits of a population-based approach to reducing dental disease. That is another counter-argument and the evidence of those two arguments has to be weighed by the strategic health authority in considering whether to proceed.
	I can confirm that it is our intention, when consulting on proposals to fluoridate, that the strategic health authority should publish a summary of the current research evidence with its sources and details of where additional information can be obtained. The Government have no intention of imposing fluoridation in any area. Our policy throughout has been that decisions must be taken locally, following well informed consultation on the issues involved.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised issues about the strategic health authority being required to show a majority in favour. As I have tried to say, we do not consider a head count alone is the most appropriate means of reaching a decision. The noble Earl raised the question of what happens if only 20 per cent of residents respond? The strategic health authority will have to look at the issues and weigh the responses from the interested bodies to ensure that the weight of opinion is in favour. I would argue that that is a demanding requirement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, asked "What about Wales?" and raised the border issues. I understand that the Welsh Assembly will in due course be considering similar regulations for any proposals for fluoridation schemes in Wales. There may be a need for the Assembly and this Parliament to consider whether a third set of regulations is required for any schemes that cross the border between England and Wales.
	I can understand that a number of Members of this House may be a little dissatisfied if I quote from a letter which I, and I suspect a number of noble Lords, received from the British Fluoridation Society. It says,
	"We believe that the draft regulations provide a sensible and workable framework by which strategic health authorities must consult on future water fluoridation proposals".
	However, I think that it is worth looking at the heading of the letter, which points out very clearly that the society has a president and vice-presidents from across the political spectrum. This is not a party political issue, and these regulations command a wide spectrum of political support.
	It was asked whether it is not sufficient to ensure that people clean their teeth, because there is enough fluoride in toothpaste. We have been over this ground. The big difficulty is in ensuring that families in deprived areas can buy the toothpaste and will establish regular brushing regimes.
	I cannot mention too often the point that is covered in Regulation 3. This was brought out very strongly in the consultations conducted by the department on these regulations, in which we stressed continually that this regulation makes it clear that bodies with an interest have to be consulted. Under Regulation 3, strategic health authorities will have to demonstrate that they have consulted all the organisations for which fluoridation may have implications. There is therefore a clear requirement in that area.
	A couple of points were raised on the subject of the indemnity regulations. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the issue of existing schemes. I can inform the House that the Secretary of State will issue new indemnities, in the form of the schedule to the regulations, to those water companies with existing schemes.
	The issue of the cost of indemnities was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. No association has been established between fluoridation and ill health, so no claims have been made. So far, the indemnities have been invoked in respect only of actions by opponents of fluoridation: for example, refusing to pay their water bills. This may be an interesting piece of information for the noble Baroness. Since 1997—and these are about the only data we have in this area—one payment of some £400 was made to a water company which had prosecuted a resident for non-payment. We are talking about quite small sums of money which have been paid out so far. We do not have any other information that I can put in the public arena in terms of the future costs of the indemnity regulations.
	We have been over this ground many times. I believe that, with the guidance we will be providing, these consultation regulations provide a satisfactory way forward for implementing the legislation that was put in place under the Water Act 2003.
	I reiterate that the Government have no intention of imposing fluoridation in any area. It has been our policy throughout, and continues to be our policy, that decisions must be taken locally, following well-informed consultations on the issues involved.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I too welcome this order. I also thank the Minister very much for circulating a revised version of the measure which was extremely helpful. I welcome in outline the quite dramatic step forward that this represents for the General Optical Council. It is clear that the range of measures which will be open to it will turn what has been a rather blunt instrument into a much more finely tuned one. In particular the fitness to practise reforms should be welcomed by practitioners and users.
	I have three questions about that for the Minister. First, on the consequential amendment, I wonder whether the protection of vulnerable adults legislation should be incorporated into this measure. My views may be coloured by a case I heard about that involved an optician. I ought not to go into details, but I would like to raise the issue.
	My second question is whether the mis-selling of glasses will be covered by the regulations. I imagine that it will, but I would be grateful if the Minister will say how it will be covered.
	Thirdly, can the Minister tell the House what provisions there will be to involve users in the consultative committee? The involvement of users is a valuable method of driving up good practice and would seem to be within the spirit of the order in updating the profession.
	I welcome the order as it applies to contact lenses. I have long been concerned about the sale of contact lenses and glasses by people are not able to tell customers at the point of purchase whether the glasses or lenses are suitable. By and large, I welcome the order as I think it will protect people from eye conditions that are potentially extremely damaging—and I say that with the heartfelt emotion of someone who once struggled to wear contact lenses and gave up the attempt.
	As a parliamentarian given the responsibility of scrutinising the regulations, I feel that there is a matter that I must raise. The explanatory note says that in 2002-03 US regulators were notified of about 100 adverse incidents involving cosmetic contact lenses. That is 100 out of how many? What proportion of sales are we talking about? How widespread is the issue? The answer to that does not appear in any of the papers. The Minister may not be able to answer me tonight, but I would like to have a sense of how widespread the issue is and, therefore, whether the measures are proportionate.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I shall answer the last question first, mainly because I know that I do not know the answer. I also have the figure of 100, but what it is 100 out of, I am not altogether sure. I need to look into the details of the research and then I will write to the noble Baroness. Mis-selling is covered by the regulations and would be misconduct.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised a question about the hearings panel. It is the main innovation in the order and is a way of putting some distance between the council and individual fitness to practice decisions, and of giving those decisions greater independence. Any allegations will be heard by the fitness to practice committee, which will be set up afresh for each hearing, using people from the panel. The panel will not contain council members. The hearings panel will be made of up three groups: optometrists, dispensing opticians and lay people. The composition of the panel will be set out in rules made by the General Optical Council that will be laid before Parliament. I cannot give more details than that, but that is the current position.
	Regarding the dispensing opticians, we are in a difficult position. They are not included in primary care trust lists, and their position will be considered as part of the review of general ophthalmic services, which will begin shortly. However, I cannot give any assurance at present that NHS money will be available to reimburse dispensing opticians for time spent on training. As with all professionals, though, they need to keep their training up to date. That is the best I can do for the noble Earl at this time.
	I have tried to respond to the points raised by noble Lords. I am grateful for the support for this order from both Benches opposite, and I commend it to the House.